Reform's future hangs in balance

While the health care reform law isn’t on the ballot today, the results of the midterm elections will have vast implications on the debate over the Democrats’ controversial legislation.

Expected Republican wins in Congress and in statehouses throughout the country Tuesday would likely slow down implementation of the law and make the debate even more contentious — but not outright stop the law.

Text Size

-

+

reset

POLITICO 44

If they win control of the House, several of the Republicans poised to take up key committee gavels promise to use their subpoena power to seek White House records of the legislative battle and call the administration to Capitol Hill to defend the law. They hope to use the next two years of congressional oversight to make the case for repealing the law in 2012 with a Republican president.

The intensive focus on investigations and oversight has proponents of the legislation concerned.

“That has very direct consequences on implementation,” said Kavita Patel, director of the health policy program at the New America Foundation and former director of policy for the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs.

The administration and the Department of Health and Human Services “are working the midnight oil to do implementation right now and will have on top of that the rigmarole of subpoenas, requests and letters,” she said. “That’s something ... they’re going to have to respond to.”

Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, the likely chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee if Republicans take the House, has said he plans to hold frequent hearings on the health law, including calling up HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

“I don’t know that a lot of people know her,” Upton told POLITICO last week. “She’s only been up once before the committee. They’re writing a lot of regulations to help the states write regulations to promulgate. ... She might get her own parking place in Rayburn.”

If they win the majority, House Republicans are expected to hold a vote to repeal the entire health care reform law soon after the new Congress is sworn in.

“Day One, I would imagine there is a one-sentence repeal bill, whether it’s H.R. 1 or 2 or 3,” said Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

But it will be a largely symbolic measure since repeal is unlikely to pass the Senate, where even if Republicans win the majority, they won’t control the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. And even if they did, President Barack Obama wouldn’t let a full repeal bill past his veto pen.

Even though Republicans have campaigned hard on their intent to repeal the law, GOP leaders have tried in recent days to tamp down expectations of a full repeal.

Readers' Comments (26)

Expected Republican wins in Congress and in statehouses throughout the country Tuesday would likely slow down implementation of the law and make the debate even more contentious — but not outright stop the law

Healthcare and healthcare insurance, at its core, is redistribution. Everyone pays in, and the money goes to those who need it (require health services). Its also important to note that healthcare is not nor will it ever be a free market. At best you may get a privately managed-government funded system (Medicare Advantage) which provides competition and a measure of choice but ironically costs more than traditional Medicare. You may also get a HSA which allows you to marginally save towards future expenses (something that best benefits upper incomes). However, such savings plan come with high deductibles and large donut holes. Eventually most Americans in them will spend through their money and revert to a traditional plan.

I've worked in healthcare for both government and private industry, there is not much difference. Most of the money out there is from the government, and the rules for government systems and the private industry are largely the same.

"I've worked in healthcare for both government and private industry, there is not much difference. Most of the money out there is from the government, and the rules for government systems and the private industry are largely the same."

And there is truth in this but why is it this way ? Hint: it was not ALWAYS like this. Insurance companies found that they could make more money this way.

And Insurance is nothing like redistribution. Its equal parts collective risk aversion and rolling the dice.

Lot of things can be repealed / changed with the purse in hand. Just taking the money away from the administration to work on the HCR will stop it. W/out budget for people not easy to write regulations or to implement them. The rule that people can join and leave the insurance at their will must be repealed / changed anyway or the private insurance business will get broke, as our beloved President actually hoped. This was his way to public option - funny enough in Medicare this rule doesn't exist or, if you do not sign on immediately you get a huge additional payment every month. Those guys in the dems party do understand that such a rule wil bankrupt any insurance and this is the intention. The other funny thing is that the Government gets the "penalty" if you do not have a private insurance and the insurance get the costs/risks of it. This law is in its way a big joke and should really be repealed as is.

Healthcare and healthcare insurance, at its core, is redistribution. Everyone pays in, and the money goes to those who need it (require health services). Its also important to note that healthcare is not nor will it ever be a free market. At best you may get a privately managed-government funded system (Medicare Advantage) which provides competition and a measure of choice but ironically costs more than traditional Medicare. You may also get a HSA which allows you to marginally save towards future expenses (something that best benefits upper incomes). However, such savings plan come with high deductibles and large donut holes. Eventually most Americans in them will spend through their money and revert to a traditional plan.

I've worked in healthcare for both government and private industry, there is not much difference. Most of the money out there is from the government, and the rules for government systems and the private industry are largely the same.

Except that one is forced redistribution by government. The other is a free choice. That is the difference between Tyranny and Liberty

Healthcare and healthcare insurance, at its core, is redistribution. Everyone pays in, and the money goes to those who need it (require health services). Its also important to note that healthcare is not nor will it ever be a free market. At best you may get a privately managed-government funded system (Medicare Advantage) which provides competition and a measure of choice but ironically costs more than traditional Medicare. You may also get a HSA which allows you to marginally save towards future expenses (something that best benefits upper incomes). However, such savings plan come with high deductibles and large donut holes. Eventually most Americans in them will spend through their money and revert to a traditional plan.

I've worked in healthcare for both government and private industry, there is not much difference. Most of the money out there is from the government, and the rules for government systems and the private industry are largely the same.

Except that one is forced redistribution by government. The other is a free choice. That is the difference between Tyranny and Liberty

Yes let's take a vote and see how many democrats still support this bill.

Of course they would rather go further than settle for that tepid weak reform. It should have been a single payer system, totally eliminating the astronomical cost introduced into the system by insurance companies and, as a consequence, including all Americans with far lower costs.

So their going to spend two years on their hot button issue while the economy continues to go to hell. Why did I even hope for more. Their playing a dangerous political game that will backfire and let the people see exactly what their alternative has gotten them; singleminded partisanship. Oh well.....

Saying that the public option = helping everyone out is like giving a credit card to a college student because she doesn't have enough money to stay in school. Eventually, all this grand free stuff has to be paid for.

of course, our liberal friends have never allowed themselves to be bothered with that tiny detail. Free is good, free for everyone!

Saying that the public option = helping everyone out is like giving a credit card to a college student because she doesn't have enough money to stay in school. Eventually, all this grand free stuff has to be paid for

You know I'm currently retired and have the benefit of Medicare that my employer and I paid into for decades. My wife is still working, and by everyone's standards she interacts with, is the hardest worker they have known. She also has paid into Social Security and Medicare, probably longer than you've been alive. Yet because her employer does not offer health insurance, because the state has failed to fund the Small Business Health Program, she has to face the private market on her own. The private market has quoted her about 1000.00 per month (Blue Double Cross)with high deductable. for SINGLE coverage. Medicare for 55 plus would have helped stabilize the current Medicare system with premiums from people such as her that are not 75 or 80 and sucking the life out of the system. When you come to me, expecting to debate come with some facts. Medicare is not free, I continue to pay premiums for it now and workers such as my wife pay anticipating coverage. She along with many others could benefit the system and themselves by being included and should not be equated to someone looking for a handout.

But thats okay, when the doctor tells her she should go get a breast exam, she simply says, why, if you find something I can't afford to get it fixed. But that should make a person such as yourself feel good; apparently you've got your's. No doubt a politician or government worker at some level thats gauranteed coverage for themselves while they rape the treasury and carp at people wanting a little consideration.